If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

RE: your point #2....those numbers you and Henry enjoy touting (money received vs. paid by each state) I believe represent Federal money spent in that state...not necessarily money handed over to state legislatures for distribution as they see fit. So unless I'm mistaken (as if...) then the money you're referring to above to is not paid to the state, but spent in the state by the Fed. There is a distinction. Just ask those in the midwest if the Mississipi river is important to their livelihood and what would be the ramifications if it was no longer navigable through the LA delta.

Your understanding on how the numbers are calculated is correct. It includes monies that go to the state government, monies sent to cities, monies spent with private businesses located in the state, etc.

Federal spending in these reports is the total amount of federal dollars returned to the state PERIOD. LA and many other states consistently and historically get substantially more federal dollars returned to their state than they pay in.

AS it says in the linked report:

Quote:
Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which estimates the amount of federal spending in each state and territory during the prior fiscal year. The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2005 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net interest outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states. For the purposes of this report, the Tax Foundation uses this census data as is.

Ah, I didn't realize that the Tax Foundation numbers you're so fond of mentioning were so broad and all-encompasing...i.e. they allocate all but 8% of all Federal spending to the individual states. I had either assumed, or you gave the impression (likely the former) that the per capita Federal spending you/they referred to was pretty much entitlement spending (i.e. Medicare, govt. assisted housing, welfare, unemployment, WIC, etc.). Seeing as the Tax Foundation numbers include any and all Federal monies spent (military, federal lands/parks, Army Corp. of Engineers, indian reservations, etc.) it becomes a lot more complicated for you to tag any particular state as a "free-loader." You like to razz Uncle Bill my comparing SD to MN using those Tax Foundation numbers, but a closer look reveals:

8% of South Dakota's population is American Indian (many from tribes who were run out of Minnesota); Minnesota's is 1%. South Dakota has a bunch of Indian reservations, Federal land and national parks; Minnesota, not so much. South Dakota's 2nd largest employer is an air force base; Minnesota has some recruiting stations in strip malls. The people of Minnesota should send the people of South Dakota a thank you card for bearing the burden of Minnesota's shameful treatment of the Indians...with a PS "and thanks for protecting us from Russian nukes and giving us numerous places to vacation." In addition, it's not surprising that many of the states with the highest per cap Federal spending (per the Tax Foundation) are also states with a higher military presence. In a nutshell...the Tax Foundation numbers don't necessarily out states as free-loaders as you'd have us to believe.

Ah, I didn't realize that the Tax Foundation numbers you're so fond of mentioning were so broad and all-encompasing...i.e. they allocate all but 8% of all Federal spending to the individual states. I had either assumed, or you gave the impression (likely the former) that the per capita Federal spending you/they referred to was pretty much entitlement spending (i.e. Medicare, govt. assisted housing, welfare, unemployment, WIC, etc.). Seeing as the Tax Foundation numbers include any and all Federal monies spent (military, federal lands/parks, Army Corp. of Engineers, indian reservations, etc.) it becomes a lot more complicated for you to tag any particular state as a "free-loader." You like to razz Uncle Bill my comparing SD to MN using those Tax Foundation numbers, but a closer look reveals:

8% of South Dakota's population is American Indian (many from tribes who were run out of Minnesota); Minnesota's is 1%. South Dakota has a bunch of Indian reservations, Federal land and national parks; Minnesota, not so much. South Dakota's 2nd largest employer is an air force base; Minnesota has some recruiting stations in strip malls. The people of Minnesota should send the people of South Dakota a thank you card for bearing the burden of Minnesota's shameful treatment of the Indians...with a PS "and thanks for protecting us from Russian nukes and giving us numerous places to vacation." In addition, it's not surprising that many of the states with the highest per cap Federal spending (per the Tax Foundation) are also states with a higher military presence. In a nutshell...the Tax Foundation numbers don't necessarily out states as free-loaders as you'd have us to believe.

Congrats Hew. You finally have given UB a reasonable reply to the fact that SD and many other states get a larger return on federal dollars than they pay in. I think I gave him this answer in a reply once but he must not have been paying attention. I doubt that the Indian issue is that substantial compared to the military costs or all the farm subsidize. Also, several other states with military bases still end up with a lower return than 1:1. I'll let you look that stuff up too. I would also bet that the amount of federal land is not much different between SD and MN either given all the national forests, national parks, WPA's, NWR's, and BWCA.

I never said that they were freeloaders but I will say that the data clearly shows that those states are more dependent on the federal government to sustain their economies than others and that there is a clear redistribution of federal tax dollars to those states. It may be because of the military, farm subsidize, FEMA payments, etc, etc. If you suggest a reduction in farm subsidize or the closing of a military base in one of these states all you will hear about are the jobs and associated economic losses, and to think the RNC chair now says "the government does not create any jobs."

Bottom line, those states get more money back than they pay in. I continue to find it ironic that many folks that post here that live in those high return states are all for lower taxes and less government when they already pay relatively lower taxes and get more government benefits than others.

Stop your drooling Henry. I know you covet the Sodak life. If you join the tax paying ranks, you can move here, but I don't want any freeloaders... you can stay in the PROM for that.

As a break-in period, start in Sioux Falls...lotsa libs there. But don't go west of the river unles you've had a course in 'Redneck'...we don't want this part of the state overrun by socialists.

After Johnson and his cronies had more votes come from the Pine Ridge res than there are voters, and defeated John Thune, we saw to it that wasn't gonna happen again. Voila! Guess who's now in the senate, and who's working to get enough $$$ to pay his back taxes? No it's not Johnson. He's still in Washington building his nestegg. But he'll never spend it.

It's a tossup who will go first...Kennedy, Byrd, or Johnson. Couldn't fault the dude running against him. Too much of a sympathy vote for Johnson. But the farm libs will soon understand his votes to follow the Obamaites are not what a true South Dakotan was voting for. And our neighbors to the North are looking very seriously at those sycophants they have in the Senate also. As they continue following in lock step with BHO and his policies, they will finally have their backsides exposed, and everyone will get into the kicking contest.

UB

When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.